Helmet with mounting bracket so I can hang the camera directly in front of my face and literally never move my eye from the viewfinder, even while having a snack/bathroom break. Can't risk missing any action!

...If, on top of an IQ increase, they could squeeze a few more MP in, I would not complain.

Welcome to CR! I wholeheartedly agree, and voted 'other'. The only specs that matter to me are related to IQ and FPS, so my wishlist is limited to:

1-2 stops better high ISO performance over the 7D (even at the expense of resolution if necessary), and

12-16 FPS (yes, equal or better than the 1Dx).

Before you label me as heretic, I would like to underline that achieving a speed equal or even better than the 1Dx in an APS-C-sized DSLR represent a much smaller engeneering effort than that required for FF since the mass of moving parts (mirror and shutter) involved is approx 1/3 of a FF camera, so much less inertia and, consequently, less energy required. This is entirely possible, and concern about possibly eating the flagship's sales is BS: I imagine a lot of 1Dx owners buying a 7DII to complement their flagship. Plus, amateurs like me, who cannot afford (or justify) the financial effort for a 1Dx and related big white glass, could finally deal seriously with sports and wildlife for less than half the cost of FF. In addition, should Canon lose a bunch of 1Dx sales, that would be largely compensated by selling other Canon gear in the form of 7DII.

On a side note, the high MP option of APS-C is already here: it's called 70D, and at this point, given the turnover of the xxD line, the 80D is not even so far away after all.

I did consider high ISO and if there are serious sensor advancements then at most we could expect 2/3 of a stop improvement over the 7D (i.e. 1/3 of a stop improvement over the 70D.) The biggest gains in IQ might only be seen in low ISO dynamic range and color sensitivity given that the appropriate technologies are implemented. I think looking for 1-2 stops improvement in high ISO is expecting a little too much from the APS-C format. Anyway, I deliberately left ISO performance out of the intro to this thread as I think the real advancements will lie in other areas of imaging performance.

I agree that the 7D-II wouldn't kill true 1D-X sales. I think that Canon would rather sell a camera profitably today than wait for someone who might or might not buy a 1D-X (new or 2nd hand) at a later date. Also, the fact that it's not a 1D-X means that if what the user truly needed was a 1D-X thgen they will need to get it later anyway.

I also fully agree that the 7D-II would be complement to the other cameras in the range. Pairing it with a full frame 6D, 5D-III or 1D-X should make sense and I think it will be spec'ed accordingly.

I did consider high ISO and if there are serious sensor advancements then at most we could expect 2/3 of a stop improvement over the 7D (i.e. 1/3 of a stop improvement over the 70D.) The biggest gains in IQ might only be seen in low ISO dynamic range and color sensitivity given that the appropriate technologies are implemented. I think looking for 1-2 stops improvement in high ISO is expecting a little too much from the APS-C format. Anyway, I deliberately left ISO performance out of the intro to this thread as I think the real advancements will lie in other areas of imaging performance.

Depends on how radically you're willing to change the sensor design. With current designs, there are some small wins like back-illuminated sensors that net you a few extra percent, but that's probably about the limit. But with a radical rethink, I think two stops is probably doable.

Right now, each pixel area consists of a cluster of four subpixels, two of which are green, one of which is red, and one of which is blue. For an arbitrary white light source, this means that only half of the green light that hits a pixel actually reaches the color filter for a green subpixel, and only 25% of the red and blue light reaches the color filter for a red or blue subpixel.

To compound the problem, the filter itself causes additional light loss. Only about 50–70% of light of a given color makes it through the filter (depending on the filter design). Multiply that by the 25% that actually reaches the right filter, and a red or blue subpixel could see as little as 12.5% of the red light hitting the pixel as a whole. That's three stops of light loss from the Bayer filter alone.

If each subpixel uses a diffraction-based detector to distinguish the color of light rather than a filter (e.g. Panasonic's Bayer-filter-free sensor design), you should easily get way more than a whole stop of additional light gathering.

It seems that the "formula" for a 7DII is pretty widely agreed-upon; it would be surprising if it were not after all this time speculating, combined with the well-understood purpose of the original.

I think we can count on frame rate and RAW buffer to not disappoint.

I'd be surprised if the pop-up flash got deleted, particularly as it could be used as a radio/IR trigger.

Losing the mode dial would not be a surprise. I would like to see the rear controls align with those on the 5DIII - either layout works fine in isolation but I find it jarring to switch between them (IMO).

So here's my personal take FWIW:

- frame rate / RAW buffer will be fast/huge (how's that for playing it safe!)- ultra-shot VF blackout time / uprated shutter (not necessary but would be nice)- pop-up flash, will have RF/IR commander function- 5DIII AF (this one has to be just about a given - I find it hard to believe there will be an all-new system)- dual-pixel AF- dual card slots (CF + CF please!!!)- textured rubber grip on the card door like 5DIII (I know, this is minor, but it sure feels nice in the hand )- LP-E6 battery- true "quiet mode" like 5DIII (unlikley I know but it'd be sweet...)- wi-fi / GPS (don't care but I assume it will be there)- latest-and-greatest CPU for main functions, separate CPU for AF - fixed rear screen. Whether it will be a touch screen is a good question

I think it's safe to assume the high-ISO performance will be slightly better than the 70D. Where will it be WRT dynamic range? I dunno but it better be real good - this is one area that Canon has been hammered with (justifiably or not) for quite a while now. But what I really, really want to see is an end to fixed pattern noise / striping / whatever you want to call it:

18 MP is enough for me. I am hoping for 10 fps, deep RAW buffer of 35 to 40 (or more?), Dual Digic 6 or equivalent speed improvement, improved AF similar to the AF on 1Dx/5D3, AF at f/8, sturdy and weather resistant (this I think is a no-brainer), ability to use really fast cards, and half a stop to a stop of improvement in high ISO performance. Yes, I know that there's not much headroom in the APS-C sensor quantum efficiency, but noise happens all along the signal processing chain. Whatever happened to CFast?

If I recall correctly, the Digic 6 processors were designed for point&shoot cameras to allow for better noise reduction for jpg processing. I'm not sure if they'll be used in DSLRs. Dual Digic 5+ still has plenty to offer as can be seen in the 1D-X. Remember also that Digic 5+ processors are currently in use in the 5D-III, 6D and 70D. So there are economies of scale to consider as well.

I did consider high ISO and if there are serious sensor advancements then at most we could expect 2/3 of a stop improvement over the 7D (i.e. 1/3 of a stop improvement over the 70D.) The biggest gains in IQ might only be seen in low ISO dynamic range and color sensitivity given that the appropriate technologies are implemented. I think looking for 1-2 stops improvement in high ISO is expecting a little too much from the APS-C format. Anyway, I deliberately left ISO performance out of the intro to this thread as I think the real advancements will lie in other areas of imaging performance.

Right now, each pixel area consists of a cluster of four subpixels, two of which are green, one of which is red, and one of which is blue. For an arbitrary white light source, this means that only half of the green light that hits a pixel actually reaches the color filter for a green subpixel, and only 25% of the red and blue light reaches the color filter for a red or blue subpixel.

I was under the impression that the bayer filter works at the pixel level and that chroma subsampling works with adjacent pixels. I believe is the only current Canon DLSR with subpixels is the 70D, but please point me to appropriate documentation if I'm incorrect.

canon rumors FORUM

I was under the impression that the bayer filter works at the pixel level and that chroma subsampling works with adjacent pixels. I believe is the only current Canon DLSR with subpixels is the 70D, but please point me to appropriate documentation if I'm incorrect.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. A subpixel is typically defined as a single color portion of a pixel, whereas a pixel is usually defined as the set of elements needed to reproduce a single dot of an arbitrary color (which means that it is a combination of at least three subpixels). When I was describing the Bayer filter, I was using "pixel" in the more traditional sense—that is, a cluster of four subpixels that combine to form a single dot of an arbitrary color.

With that said, in the camera world, when folks talk about megapixels, they're really talking about mega-subpixels. It's something of a terminology bug that is pretty much limited to the world of cameras. Each pixel captures only one color, so it's really a subpixel, which means you have an effective pixel resolution of half the megapixel count in the greens and a quarter of the megapixel count in the reds and blues. However, because of the arrangement, in some crude way, there is some resolving power beyond that threshold as long as you're dealing with black-and-white imaging, so some folks call them pixels.

Either way, whatever you choose to call them, the light hitting one of those clusters of four subpixels goes through a set of four color filters—two green, one red, and one blue—so in effect, half of the surface area is sensitive to only green light, a quarter is sensitive only to blue, and a quarter is sensitive only to red. Therefore, assuming the light of a given color is spread evenly across the entire cluster (which, on average, is true), then half of the green light that hits that cluster of subpixels is lost, and three-quarters of the red and blue light that hits that cluster of subpixels is lost.

Note that this is completely unrelated to the concept of split pixels as exists in the 70D, where half of a subpixel/pixel picks up the light coming in from half of the lens and the other half picks up the light coming in from the other half. I'm not quite sure what to call those, but I wouldn't call them subpixels unless you want to confuse everyone.

the only thing I would bet on is a new more MP sensor and 10FPS. with that, they could use slightly higher than 7FPS burst rate and same sensor in forthcoming 80D, which is probably due in 2016, and still wouldn't endanger the 7D2.